Another who comes immediately to mind is Henry VIII's son who succeeded him. Since the Church law of the time prohibited Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon much less his marriage to five others, only his daughter Mary (by Catherine of Aragon) was a legitimate heir. Lizzie I was also a bastard, therefore.
How very unlikely it is that no other bastards ever sat upon the Brit throne??? I do admit sympathizing with my Irosh ancestors over my British ancestors.
I might add that Britain would have profited from having some competent bastard on the throne instead of the likes of George III
By the time that Henry VIII married his third wife Jane Seymour and begat his son Edward, his two previous wives were deceased, therefore his marriage to JS was legitimate and so was his heir.
Catholics may not recognize the Protestant church or divorce, but according to the law in England at that time, Henry’s divorce from Catherine and and marriage to Anne Boleyn was legitimate; Henry and Catherine’s daughter Mary recognized her half-sister Elizabeth as her heir.
You are dealing wirh pure conjecture when you say that Edw II was not the father of Edw III. Many homosexuals marry women and father children. An outstanding example closer to our own time is the writer Oscar Wilde.